#4515754 - 04/11/2004:27 AMStar Wars - Rise of Skywalker
Joined: Sep 2001 Posts: 24,712Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
I did a search of this forum and amazingly didn't find a thread for the film - apologies if I'm just not putting in the right keywords!
Just watched it on Ye Olde BluRay, and I have to say it's finally a Disney Star Wars that I enjoyed.
Without spoilers, things I liked:
Wow oh wow did they take from the Expanded Universe in a shameless manner - so much for "none of it's canon;" it's more like "well, maybe it's not canon, but that doesn't mean it's not Star Wars."
They worked through the whole Kylo-Rey joining weirdness and put it to use in a decent manner.
It was written for young adults, so no over the top silliness.
The nostalgia pops didn't feel gratuitous or like blatant fan service - except one right at the end of the movie, and it's too funny to be mad about.
Rey is less Mary Sue and more trained Jedi. Still a Mary Sue, but they couldn't undo it.
Things blew up real good.
Not so great:
They borrowed so heavily from the EU that we wound up pausing the film to explain why my son and I gasped at points to my "I only ever saw the movies one time, guys, gimme a break" wife why things were a big deal.
To take from Guardians of the Galaxy parenthetically, "I think of Stormtroopers as paper people." Former Stormtroopers, though, are excellent marksmen.
The writers are great big rabid fans of Avatar: The Last Airbender and it showed. Btw, Rey is an Earth Bender.
Other stuff would be spoilers, so there it is, my assessment. Best of the Star Wars since the OrigTrig, bumping Attack of the Clones out of first place.
Last edited by Dart; 04/11/2004:29 AM.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
From Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
Inline advert (4th to 5th topic)
#4515852 - 04/11/2006:12 PMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 19,581Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
MS
I liked it, certainly an improvement over the previous movie. I've liked them all, but certainly some more than others. This one attempted to "fix" a lot from TLJ and I think it did a good job of it. I like the well...bad guy. In fact, I think it works in perfectly with his story and claims.
In my mind, he mentioned in Revenge of the Sith how Darth Plagueis learned to defeat death, but was killed by his apprentice (Palpatine). IMO, that's due to figuring out the mind/body swap thing and Palpatine might even be Darth Plagueis, or perhaps someone older? Mind swapping then killing off the apprentice in his old body, or they just die in the process. There's only one apprentice (prob for this reason) so no one lives to tell about the trap. He may have wanted Anakin for his next swap, until he was seriously injured and other options were dead or in hiding. Then wanted Luke or Leia as an option. I don't think his fall is a big deal in RotJ and he somewhere found or created a body to use with the cloning tech until Rylo and Rey came along to move into properly. Just my personal theory, but I think it makes more sense than someone keeping himself alive just by will.
There's still a problem and a video I saw recently nailed it for me: battles are *too* big. This goes for all scifi not just SW. ST, SW, Enders Game (a good example)...the battles are too big and impersonal. Fewer ships make for intense battles. Look at The Expanse, most B5 (a few notable exceptions, but that had major build up)...smaller is usually better. Not a perfect fix, but it would've made even really good shows/movies step up to the next level.
There's still a problem and a video I saw recently nailed it for me: battles are *too* big.
That is something that has always bothered me about Star Trek, starships facing off a few hundred yards apart and in fleets of hundreds "wingtip to wingtip".
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,473PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,473
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by F4UDash4
That is something that has always bothered me about Star Trek, starships facing off a few hundred yards apart and in fleets of hundreds "wingtip to wingtip".
I think the fundamental problem here is that a space battle between capital ships in reality would take place several hundred kilometers apart between the opposing fleets and to portray it like that on screen would most likely be dull and boring for mainstream audiences.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4515929 - 04/12/2003:30 AMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,473PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,473
Miami, FL USA
My fundamental problem with the Disney SW trilogy is while I thought the films were "ok" and enjoyable for the most part, I have zero interest in seeing any of them a second time.
Is that because of my age and thus I'm not a part of the target audience and have "outgrown" Star Wars or is it because the writing was simply sub-par and the new characters were not interesting?
Now compare this with the original trilogy where I've seen each film at least 25 times over the course of my life so far.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
That is something that has always bothered me about Star Trek, starships facing off a few hundred yards apart and in fleets of hundreds "wingtip to wingtip".
I think the fundamental problem here is that a space battle between capital ships in reality would take place several hundred kilometers apart between the opposing fleets and to portray it like that on screen would most likely be dull and boring for mainstream audiences.
Only because of a total lack of imagination by movie makers.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4515971 - 04/12/2012:50 PMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Dec 1999 Posts: 6,779EAF331 MadDog
XBL: LanceHawkins
Star Wars space combat was always meant to mirror things like Battle of Britain, where Lucas drew his inspiration for it from.
"realistic" space combat (kinda hard ot define, as we don't have any experience in it - just theorycrafting) would probably be very boring to watch. No light shows, no explosions and probably done at huge distances. Remember that movies are entertainment and a stunning up close dogfight is far more rewarding than shooting penetrators at lightseconds distance.
The Expanse has something probably more realistic, and some of my favorite is in Alastair Reynold's books - where combat was done at lightminutes and lighthours using propbabilty calcuations based on speed and specs of a vessel and where you saturated it's possible paths with ordnance so it has no way to escape.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,473PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,473
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by EAF331 MadDog
"realistic" space combat (kinda hard ot define, as we don't have any experience in it - just theorycrafting)
Agreed but I think much of the assumption is based on the documented combat between battleships from WW1 and WW2. If the engagement ranges between battleships was usually several hundred meters, it can be easily extrapolated that combat between capital ships in space with huge weapons in the vacuum of space could take place at ranges of several hundred kilometers.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4516010 - 04/12/2004:30 PMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Again, for battles, it's all about the entertainment factor. Even non-sci-fi movies like Top Gun have to compress the distances to make it look interesting on film.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
#4516038 - 04/12/2006:20 PMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 19,581Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
MS
Watching a missile take 3 days to get to a target would make for one long movie. I have no problem with the way it's portrayed in movies and shows in that respect. Even The Expanse greatly condenses what's in the books to make it watchable. You can do more in books than works on a screen.
Watching a missile take 3 days to get to a target would make for one long movie.
Yep.
But in the case of most sci-fi, those that feature faster than light travel or even "almost as fast" as light, that wouldn't be necessary. I don't have the whole "futuristic space warfare" deal figured out by any means but here are some random points, in no particular order, that I would incorporate if I were making a believable sci-fi movie:
Missiles. Various types, capabilities and ranges. Start with "short range" (1000-10,000 miles) and capable of low sublight speed (seconds of travel time). Small, light, highly maneuverable and hard to detect but also not having a particularly large warhead. Medium range (10,000-100,000 miles). Bigger, faster, easier to detect, easier to avoid/intercept and capable of higher speeds but still sublight, still seconds of travel time due to higher speed capability over a longer range. Long range missiles (100,000 - 500,000 miles) with large warheads, long range, high speed. But again, still seconds of travel time, maybe a minute at maximum range. Each type has advantages and disadvantages and no "starship" has an unlimited inventory of any type, especially the larger ones.
Defensive weapons. Again missiles but much smaller, very fast and very maneuverable to hopefully intercept any of the above offensive weapons.
Offensive/defensive railguns. For offensive use at ranges shorter that than 1000 miles and defense against offensive missiles. The target can only hope to dodge the incoming projectiles, you can't intercept them but on the plus side (for the target) individually the projectiles don't do a lot of damage.
Stealth. Varying levels of stealth of the starships and weapons under different circumstances. A good writer could go nuts with all the variable scenarios.
Electronic detection (thing radar) and countermeasures. Again, good writers could dream up a ton of varied and believable scenarios.
Think of it as taking an amalgamation of mid to late 20th century naval weapons technology, guns to missiles to electronics etc., and increase the ranges by a few orders of magnitude.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
That is something that has always bothered me about Star Trek, starships facing off a few hundred yards apart and in fleets of hundreds "wingtip to wingtip".
I think the fundamental problem here is that a space battle between capital ships in reality would take place several hundred kilometers apart between the opposing fleets and to portray it like that on screen would most likely be dull and boring for mainstream audiences.
Sure.
So you compress it some so you can keep the ships on screen (as pointed out, this is done with combat scenes in all genres) . . . but that is a difference in kind from making so many ships (or ships so big, or both) that they fill up the whole screen but also do not let you see what is going on (something JJ Abrams is notorious for in his Star Trek and Star Wars movies).
#4517149 - 04/19/2003:59 AMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,942453Raafspitty
Senior Member
If anyones read Honor Harrington books it gives a lot better indication of how Space Battles should be..Death Star Trench runs have been done to death..
When it comes to Star Trek battles, TOS did it right. If you can push a ship through space thousands of times the speed of light and wind up in orbit around it, you can put a warp speed torpedo or warp enhanced phaser beam onto a target thousands of miles away. The Orion battle, the Klingon vs sabotaged Enterprise, etc. I agree totally.
The way they made battles all sub-light was an excuse for close up explosions and cinematics. Modern viewers need to see the details, but in space no one sees you blow up at warp 4. Chekov just lets everyone know.
When it comes to Star Trek battles, TOS did it right. If you can push a ship through space thousands of times the speed of light and wind up in orbit around it, you can put a warp speed torpedo or warp enhanced phaser beam onto a target thousands of miles away. The Orion battle, the Klingon vs sabotaged Enterprise, etc. I agree totally.
The way they made battles all sub-light was an excuse for close up explosions and cinematics. Modern viewers need to see the details, but in space no one sees you blow up at warp 4. Chekov just lets everyone know.
There's limitations with lasers/particle beams over vast distances. The inverse square law(of sorts) still applies even to collimated and focused beams. I say "of sorts" because unlike radiating from a spherical source, lasers are emitted from a lensed collimator and the amount of spread over distance depends on the divergence. We can't make perfect lasers with zero beam divergence, so the ratio might not be 1/d^2, but a weaker amount, but eventually the photon/particle beam will spread to a point that far less hit the intended target than needed to cause noticeable damage. If anything, the beam would gradually "grow weaker" per unit of distance traveled. Each photon remains at the same strength, but the volume striking the surface will be less and less due to this divergence.
And no, you aren't going to warp a laser. C is a constant, period. Light and any other particulate projectile is incapable of exceeding C. You aren't going to encase photons in their own "warp bubble," and if you could, you'd encase something with far more mass instead to cause damage. Funny thing about "warp bubbles," or in theoretical physics known as Alcubierre technology, the "bubble" must be sustained. It is not static. It will not remain over time. So it is not like "fire and forget" with warp bubble bullets. The same reason that light can't exceed C still applies to gravity and local spacetime--albeit we don't quite understand this reason yet, applies nonetheless. If not maintained, it will dissipate and I'd reckon the consequences could be catastrophic for the object inside if too sudden--or to local spacetime at the exit point.
If you want to learn more, this is a great place to start:
Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, who heads up NASA's Eagleworks program, is a pretty smart guy.
Star Trek is far from perfect or realistic, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
#4517308 - 04/20/2010:38 AMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,473PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,473
Miami, FL USA
Excellent post Mr_Blastman.
The bottom line of this entire discussion is that the vast majority of movies and tv shows don't have a scientifically plausible depiction of space combat because it would be boring for the majority of audiences.
On a related note, I was watching some Youtube videos over the weekend of actual WW 2 armor combat footage (for example the famous duel in Koln in 1945) and I could easily see why it would be boring for mainstream audiences to watch.
So instead we get stuff like "Fury" which has laughably over the top combat but is entertaining for the mainstream audience.
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 04/20/2010:42 AM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4517336 - 04/20/2002:46 PMRe: Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker
[Re: Dart]
I think of all the shows I have seen, "The Expanse" comes the closest to realistic, albeit in a radically condensed format. Think "time compression' in flight sim terms--hours or half days turn into seconds. I doubt we'll have starfighters waltzing within plasma trail twirls, as sad as this makes me. BVR combat, almost all the time.